Sophia Scriptura

Against Heresies 2.7.1–2.12.8

Irenaeus of Lyons · Against Heresies · ca. 180–190 · Lyons · 26 passages

Latin text: Harvey 1857 (Latin text: Harvey (1857), transcribed from archive.org OCR of the printed volumes; section numbers checked against Stieren (1853)).English: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), public domain (CC0). Compare: Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1 (1885), Irenaeus, Against Heresies.

Against 2, chapter 7

2.7.1Harvey 1:265–266

IewonaANTE itaque Demiurgo universa, Salvatorem dicunt honorasse Pleroma in conditione per Matrem, similitudines et imagines eorum qu sursum sunt emittentem. Sed quoniam quidem impossibile erat, extra Pleroma esse aliquid, in quo imagines dicunt factas esse eorum qui sunt intra Pleroma, vel ab alio quodam preter primum Deum fabricari hune. mundum, ostendimus. Si autem suave est undique evertere eos, et mendaces arguere, dicemus adversus eos, quoniam si in honorem eorum que sursum gunt, facta sunt haec secundum illorum imaginem a Salvatore, semper ea oportet perseverare, uti et semper sint in honore, que sunt honorata. Si autem transeunt, que utilitas hujus brevissimi temporis honoris, qui aliquando quidem non fuit, rursus autem non erit? Vans igitur glori: appetitor magis erit Salvator, quam honorans qua sunt sursum, arguitur a nobis. Quis enim honor est aeternorum eorum quze semper sunt, ea qui sunt temporalia; eorum que stant, ea que praetereunt; incorruptibilium, corruptibilia? Quandoquidem et apud homines qui sunt temporales, nulla gratia est ejus honoris, qui celeriter praeterit, sed ejus qui plurimum quantum potest perseverat. Qu autem statim ut facta sunt exterminantur, in contumeliam magis eorum qui putantur honorari facta esse juste dicentur: et contumeliose tractari id quod est seternum, corrupta ejus et soluta imagine. Quid autem si non plorasset, et risisset, et aporiata esset mater ipsorum, non. habuisset Salvator per qus honoraret plenitudinem, extremae confusionis non habentis propriam substantiam, per quam honoraret Propatorem?

While the Demiurge, then, was ignorant of all things, the Saviour, they say, honoured the Pleroma in the creation through the Mother, emitting likenesses and images of those above. But we have shown that it was impossible for anything to be outside the Pleroma, in which they say images of those within the Pleroma were made, or for this world to be made by anyone other than the first God. But since it is pleasant to overthrow them on every side and prove them liars, we shall say against them that if these things were made by the Saviour after their image in honour of those above, they ought always to endure, so that what has been honoured may always be in honour. But if they pass away, what is the use of this very brief honour, which once was not and again will not be? The Saviour will be shown by us to be rather a seeker of vainglory than one who honours those above. For what honour to the eternal things that always are are things temporal; to things that stand, things that pass away; to the incorruptible, the corruptible? Since even among men, who are temporal, there is no regard for an honour that passes quickly, but for one that lasts as long as possible. And things that perish as soon as they are made will justly be said to have been made rather to the insult of those who are thought to be honoured, and what is eternal is treated with insult when its image is corrupted and dissolved. And what if their Mother had not wept, laughed and been perplexed? The Saviour would not have had anything by which to honour the Fullness, since her final confusion had no substance of its own by which to honour the Propator?

Notes and citation

Summary: If the world were a passing image made in honour of the Aeons, it would dishonour rather than honour them.

  • Harvey's chapter title (“Proof that our creation is not an image of their Pleroma, nor the Demiurge of the Only-begotten”), a margin reference and a stray mark are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (OCR slip; editor's chapter title; margin reference; stray mark for a question mark): Ostensio non esse eam qua est secundum nos creaturam vmaginem Pleromatis eorum, neque Demiurgum Unigeniti. → ; et 1.1.9. imagines → et imagines; à nobis → a nobis; Propatorem $ → Propatorem?.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.7.1 (Harvey 1:265–266; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-7-1).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-7-1) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.7.2Harvey 1:266–267

O vans glorie honor, qui statim preterit, et jam non apparet Erit aliquis /Eon, in quo in totum talis honor fuisse non reputabitur, et inhonorata erunt tunc quz sunt sursum: aut aliam iterum necesse erit Matrem emittere plorantem, et aporiatam, in honorem Pleromatis. O indissimilis, simul autem et blasphemae imaginis Imaginem mihi dicitis emissam a mundi fabricatore Unigeniti, quem et Nun vultis esse Patris universorum, et imaginem hanc ignorare quidem semetipsam; ignorare autem et conditionem, ignorare autem et Matrem, et omne quodcunque est eorum quze sunt, et eorum quz ab eo facta sunt: et non erubescitis adversus vos ipsos ignorantiam inducentes usque ad ipsum Monogenen? Si enim secundum similitudinem eorum quse sunt sursum, a Salvatore facta sunt haec, ignorante eo tanta qui secundum similitudinem factus est, necesse est et cirea eum et secundum eum, ad cujus similitudinem factus est is qui ignorat, hujusmodi ignorantiam exsistere spiritaliter. Non enim possibile est, cum sint utrique spiritaliter emissi, neque plasmati neque compositi, depravasse imaginem similitudinis, que in hoc sit emissa, ut sit secundum similitudinem ejus, que sursum est emissio. Quod si non est similis, Salvatoris erit incusatio, qui dissimilem emisit imaginem, quasi reprobabilis artifex. Nec enim dicere possunt, quasi non haberet potestatem emissionis Salvator, quem Omnia esse dicunt. Si igitur dissimilis est imago, malus est artifex, et est culpa Salvatoris secundum eos. Si autem similis est, eadem ignorantia invenietur circa Nun Propatoris ipsorum, hoc est, Monogenen: et ignoravit quidem semetipsum Nus Patris, ignoravit autem et Patrem, ignoravit autem et ea que ab eo facta sunt. Si autem cognoscit ille, et eum, qui ad similitudinem ejus factus est a Salvatore, necesse est cognoscere quse sunt similia: et soluta est ipsorum secundum suam regulam maxima blasphemia.

O honour of vainglory, which passes at once and appears no more! There will be some Aeon in which such honour will not be thought to have existed at all, and then the things above will be unhonoured; or it will be necessary to emit again another Mother, weeping and perplexed, in honour of the Pleroma. O dissimilar and at the same time blasphemous image! You tell me that an image of the Only-begotten was emitted, the world-maker, whom you also will have to be the Nus of the Father of all, and that this image did not know itself, did not know the creation, did not know the Mother, nor anything that exists, nor the things made by him; and are you not ashamed to bring ignorance, against yourselves, right up to Monogenes himself? For if these things were made by the Saviour after the likeness of those above, while the one made after the likeness is so ignorant, such ignorance must also exist spiritually around him and in him after whose likeness the ignorant one was made. For since both were emitted spiritually, neither moulded nor composed, it is not possible for the image of the likeness to have been spoiled, which was emitted for this purpose, to be after the likeness of the emission above. And if it is not like, the blame will be the Saviour's, who emitted an unlike image, like an incompetent craftsman. For they cannot say that the Saviour, whom they call All Things, lacked the power of emission. If, then, the image is unlike, the craftsman is bad, and the fault, according to them, is the Saviour's. But if it is like, the same ignorance will be found in the Nus of their Propator, that is, Monogenes: the Nus of the Father did not know himself, nor the Father, nor the things made by him. But if he knows, then the one made after his likeness by the Saviour must also know the like things; and their greatest blasphemy is dissolved by their own rule.

Notes and citation

Summary: If the ignorant Demiurge is an image of the Only-begotten, either the image is bad or the Only-begotten is ignorant too.

  • A margin reference and stray marks are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (margin reference; stray marks): Mass TI. secundum → secundum; Quod —— ——— si → Quod si.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.7.2 (Harvey 1:266–267; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-7-2).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-7-2) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.7.3Harvey 1:267–268

Er sine hoc autem, quonam modo ea quz sunt creaturae, sic varia et multa, et innumerabilia, eorum /Eonum qui sunt intra Pleroma xxx imagines esse possunt, quorum et nomina qus sint, secundum quod dicunt, in eo qui est ante hunc libro posuimus? Et non tantum universe creature varietatem, sed ne quidem partis alicujus aut caelestium, aut superterrestrium, aut aquatilium poterunt adaptare Pleromatis ipsorum parvitati. Quoniam enim Pleroma ipsorum xxx ZEones sunt, ipsi testantur: quoniam autem in una parte ipsorum que dicta sunt, non xxx sed multa millia specierum esse annumerant, eos ostendere omnis quicunque confitebitur. Quomodo igitur ea, que tam multe sunt conditionis et contrariis subsistentia, et repugnantia invicem, et interficientia alia alia, imagines et similitudines esse possunt xxx /Eonum * Pleromati; siquidem unius nature, quemadmodum dicunt, ex sequali et simili exsistant, et nullam habeant differentiam * Oportebat autem, si hzec illorum imagines sunt, quemadmodum natura nequam homines dicunt quosdam, et natura rursus bonos, et ZEonum ipsorum ostendere tales differentias, et quosdam quidem ex ipsis natura bonos dicere emissos, quosdam autem natura malos, ut imaginis illorum adinventio congruens esset /ZEonibus. Adhuc autem quoniam in mundo altera quidem sunt mansueta, altera ' vero fera, et quidam quidem non nocentia, quaedam nocentia, et reliquorum corrumpentia; et qusedam quidem superterrestria, quaedam aquatilia, qu:edam volatilia, quedam caelestia: similiter et eos ostendere debent tales habere affectiones, si quidem haec illorum imagines sunt. Ef ignis autem «ternus, quem pra paravit Pater diabolo et angelis ejus, cujus eorum qui sunt sursum /E:ones imago sit interpretari debent: et ipse enim in conditione numeratur.

Apart from this, how can the things of creation, so varied, many and innumerable, be images of the thirty Aeons within the Pleroma, whose names, as they give them, we set out in the book before this? And not only the variety of the whole creation, but not even that of any one part, whether of heavenly, or earthly, or water creatures, can they fit to the smallness of their Pleroma. For that their Pleroma is thirty Aeons, they themselves testify; but anyone will show that in one of the parts mentioned they count not thirty but many thousands of species. How then can things of so manifold a creation, standing in opposition, fighting one another and killing one another, be images and likenesses of the thirty Aeons of the Pleroma, if indeed, as they say, these are of one nature, made of equal and like, and have no difference? If these things were their images, then, as they say some men are evil by nature and others good by nature, they ought to show such differences in the Aeons too, and say that some of them were emitted good by nature and some evil by nature, so that their invention of the image might fit the Aeons. Further, since in the world some creatures are gentle and others fierce, some harmless and some harmful and destroying the rest, and some on earth, some in the water, some flying and some heavenly, they ought likewise to show that those have such properties, if indeed these are their images. And they must explain of which of the Aeons above the eternal fire is an image, which the Father prepared for the devil and his angels; for it too is counted in the creation.

Matt 25:41 (quotation, high confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: The countless, conflicting creatures of the world cannot be images of thirty uniform Aeons.

  • Quotation: Matt 25:41. A misplaced chapter title (“How their talk about images runs off to infinity”), running heads and stray marks are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (OCR digits for eos; editor's chapter title, misplaced in the OCR; margin reference; running head; stray marks): Quomodo in immensum, excidit de vmaginibus eorum sermo. → ; homines LIB. IT. vit. dicunt → homines dicunt; ipsorum 6. 1%. MASS. IL ostendere → ipsorum ostendere; natura — — —— bonos → natura bonos; et 68 ostendere → et eos ostendere.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.7.3 (Harvey 1:267–268; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-7-3).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-7-3) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.7.4Harvey 1:268

Si autem excogitationis ejus qui passus est 7Eonis dicent imagines heec esse, primum quidem impie agent adversus Matrem suam, malorum et corruptibilium imaginum initiatricem esse eam dicentes. Deinde autem ea que sunt multa, et dissimilia, et contraria natura, quonam modo unius et ejusdem imaginis erunt Et si Pleromatis angelos multos esse dicent, et horum illa que sunt, multa imagines esse, nec sic eis constabit ratio. Primo enim differentias Pleromatis angelorum contrarias invicem debent ostendere, quemadmodum et subjacentes imagines contrarig nature invicem sunt. Deinde autem cum sint multi et innumerabiles circa factorem angeli, quemadmodum omnes confitentur prophetae, dena millia denum millium assistere ei, et multa millia millium ministrare ei; et secundum eos, Pleromatis angeli angelos factoris imagines habebunt, et manet conditio integra in imagine Pleromatis, jam non consequentibus xxx Z7Eonis [in] multiformem conditionis varietatem.

But if they say these are images of the Enthymesis of the Aeon who suffered, first they will act impiously against their Mother, calling her the initiator of evil and corruptible images. Then how will things that are many, unlike and contrary in nature be images of one and the same? And if they say the angels of the Pleroma are many, and the many things here are their images, even so their account will not hold. For first they must show differences among the angels of the Pleroma contrary to one another, as the images below are of contrary nature to one another. Then, since the angels around the Maker are many and innumerable, as all the prophets confess, ten thousand times ten thousand stand before him and many thousands of thousands serve him: according to them, the angels of the Pleroma will have the Maker's angels as images, and the creation remains whole in the image of the Pleroma, the thirty Aeons no longer corresponding to the many-formed variety of creation.

Dan 7:10 (allusion, high confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: Neither Sophia's Enthymesis nor the angels of the Pleroma can account for creation's variety as its images.

  • Allusion: Dan 7:10.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.7.4 (Harvey 1:268; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-7-4).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-7-4) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.7.5Harvey 1:269

Adhuc etiam, si secundum similitudinem hec illorum facta sunt, illa rursus ad quorum similitudinem erunt facta? Si enim mundi fabricator non a semetipso fecit haec, sed quemadmodum nullius momenti artifex, et quasi primum discens puer, de alienis archetypis transtulit, Bythus ipsorum unde habuit speciem ejus quam primum emisit dispositionis * Consequens est igitur, illum ab altero quodam, qui super eum est, exemplum accepisse, et illum rursus ab altero. Et nihilominus in immensum excidet de imaginibus sermo: quemadmodum et de Diis, si non fixerimus sensum in unum artificem, et in unum Deum, qui a semetipso fecit ea quze facta sunt. Aut de hominibus quidem aliquis permittit, a semetipsis utile aliquid ad vitam adinvenisse: ei autem Deo, qui mundum consummavit, non permittit a semetipso fecisse speciem eorum quis facta sunt, et adinventionem ornatae dispositionis?

Further, if these things were made after their likeness, after whose likeness again were those made? For if the world-maker did not make these things from himself, but like a worthless craftsman, or a boy just learning, copied them from others' archetypes, where did their Bythus get the form of the arrangement he first emitted? It follows that he took the pattern from someone else above him, and that one again from another. And no less will the talk of images run off to infinity, as also of gods, if we do not fix our mind on one craftsman and one God, who made of himself the things that were made. Or does one allow men to have found something useful for life of themselves, but not allow the God who completed the world to have made of himself the form of the things made and the design of their ordered arrangement?

Notes and citation

Summary: If creation copies higher patterns, the regress of models never ends; one God made all things from himself.

  • Running heads, margin references and stray marks are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (margin reference; running head; stray mark; stray marks): facta LIB II v1.3. sunt → facta sunt; Si enim 499 11. mundi → Si enim mundi; quemadmodum —-—— nullius → quemadmodum nullius; ! Bythus → Bythus.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.7.5 (Harvey 1:269; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-7-5).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-7-5) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.7.6Harvey 1:269–270

Unde autem et haec illorum imagines, cum sint illis contraria, et in nullo possunt eis communicare? Quse enim sunt contraria, eorum, quorum sunt contraria, esse quidem possunt exitiosa; imagines vero nullo modo, quemadmodum aqua igni, et rursus lumen tenebris, et alia tanta, nequaquam erunt invicem imagines. Sic nec ea quz sunt corruptibilia, et terrena, et composita, et praetereuntia, eorum, quze secundum eos sunt, spiritalium imagines erunt: nisi et ipsa composita, et in circumscriptione, et in figuratione confiteantur esse, et non jam spiritalia et effusa et locupletia et. incomprehensibilia. Necesse est enim ea in figuratione esse, et circumscriptione, ut sint imagines verae: et absolutum est ea non esse spiritalia. Si autem illa spiritalia et effusa et incomprehensibilia dicunt, quomodo possunt, que sunt in figura, et in circumscriptione, imagines illorum esse, qui sunt sine figuratione et incomprehensibiles?

And how are these things their images, when they are contrary to them and can share nothing with them? For contraries can be destructive of the things to which they are contrary, but in no way images of them; as water and fire, or again light and darkness, and many others, will never be images of one another. So too things corruptible, earthly, composite and passing will not be images of those which, according to them, are spiritual; unless they confess that those too are composite, circumscribed and shaped, and no longer spiritual, diffused, abundant and incomprehensible. For they must be shaped and circumscribed to be true images, and then it is settled that they are not spiritual. But if they say those are spiritual, diffused and incomprehensible, how can things that are shaped and circumscribed be images of those that are without shape and incomprehensible?

Notes and citation

Summary: Corruptible, bounded things cannot be images of spiritual, boundless Aeons.

  • Digit debris is corrected.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (OCR digits for que): possunt, 4088 sunt → possunt, que sunt.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.7.6 (Harvey 1:269–270; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-7-6).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-7-6) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.7.7Harvey 1:270

Si autem[nec] secundum figurationem, nec secundum formationem, sed secundum numerum et ordinem emissionis imagines ea dicent esse: primo quidem non essent imagines dicenda haec et similitudines eorum, qui sursum sunt /Eonum. Quse enim nec habitum nec figura millorum habent, quemadmodum imagines sunt ipsorum? Post deinde et numeros et emissiones superiorum ZEonum eosdem et similes ad eos qui sunt conditionis adaptent. Nunc autem triginta ostendentes /Eones, et tantam multitudinem eorum quz sunt in conditione imagines eorum qui sunt triginta dicentes, juste ut insensati arguentur a nobis.

But if they say these are images not by shape [nor] by form, but by number and order of emission, then first these should not be called images and likenesses of the Aeons above; for how are things that have neither their bearing nor their figure images of them? Then they should fit the numbers and emissions of the higher Aeons as the same as and like those of creation. But as it is, showing thirty Aeons and saying that the great multitude of things in creation are images of the thirty, they will justly be refuted by us as senseless.

Notes and citation

Summary: Created things cannot be images of the thirty Aeons by number either, since they are countless.

  • “Nor” is Harvey's supplement. A margin reference inside a word is removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (margin reference inside a word; stray mark): ?[nec] → [nec]; emisx. 15 sionis → emissionis.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.7.7 (Harvey 1:270; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-7-7).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-7-7) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

Against 2, chapter 8

2.8.1Harvey 1:270

S: autem haec illorum umbram dicent esse, quemadmodum quidam ipsorum audent dicere, ut secundum hoc imagines esse, necesse erit et corpora ipsos ea quz sunt sursum confiteri. Ea enim qui sursum sunt corpora umbram faciunt, non autem jam spiritalia, quandoquidem nulli obscurare possunt. Si autem et demus illis hoc, quod quidem est impossibile, eorum quze sunt spiritalia et lucida umbram esse, in quam Matrem suam descendisse dicunt, tamen cum illa sint aeterna, et ea quse ex ipsis efficitur umbra sempiterna perseverat, et non jam transeunt haec, sed perseverant cum his, quie se adumbrant. Si autem hsc transeunt, et illa necesse est, quorum hec sunt umbra, transire: illis autem perseverantibus, perseverat et umbra ipsorum.

But if they say these things are a shadow of those, as some of them dare to say, so that they are images in this sense, they will have to confess that the things above are bodies. For bodies above cast a shadow, but spiritual things do not, since they can darken nothing. And even if we grant them this, which is impossible, that there is a shadow of spiritual and luminous things, into which they say their Mother descended, yet since those things are eternal, the shadow cast by them also remains for ever, and these things do not pass away but endure with the things that overshadow them. But if these pass away, the things of which they are the shadow must also pass away; and if those endure, their shadow endures too.

Notes and citation

Summary: If creation were a shadow of the Aeons, they would be bodies, and the shadow would last as long as they do.

  • A stray digit is removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (OCR debris (digit)): 9nulli → nulli.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.8.1 (Harvey 1:270; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-8-1).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-8-1) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.8.2Harvey 1:270

Si autem non secundum id quod obumbretur, dicent eam umbram esse, sed secundum id quod multo ab illis separata sint, paterni luminis ipsorum pusillitatem et infirmitatem accusabunt, quasi non attingat usque ad hse, sed deficiat adimplere id quod est vacuum, et dissolvere umbram, et hoc quando nemo sit impedimento. In caliginem enim convertetur secundum eos et obczecabitur paternum lumen eorum, et deficiet in his quse sunt vacuitatis locis, cum minime possit adimplere omnia. Non igitur jam dicant Pleroma esse omnium Bythum ipsorum; siquidem id quod est vacuum et umbra neque adimplevit neque illuminavit: aut iterum umbram et vacuum praetermittant, siquidem adimplet omnia paternum ipsorum lumen.

But if they say it is a shadow not in the sense of being overshadowed, but in the sense of being far separated from them, they will accuse their Father's light of smallness and weakness, as though it did not reach as far as these things, but failed to fill the void and dispel the shadow, and that when nothing hinders it. For according to them their Father's light will turn into darkness and be blinded and fail in the places of the void, since it cannot fill all things. Let them no longer say, then, that their Bythus is the Pleroma of all, if he neither filled nor illuminated the void and the shadow; or else let them drop the shadow and the void, if their Father's light fills all things.

Notes and citation

Summary: If creation is shadow because it is far from the Father's light, that light is weak and Bythus is not the fullness of all.

  • Margin references are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (margin reference; margin reference inside a word): pater118. ILvil 1. num → paternum; cum M 0 IL minime → cum minime; omnia. vill. 3. Non → omnia. Non.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.8.2 (Harvey 1:270; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-8-2).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-8-2) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.8.3Harvey 1:270

Neque igitur extra primum Patrem, id est qui super omnia est Deus, aut Pleroma aliquid esse potest, in quod Enthymesin passi /Eonis descendisse dicunt, ut non definiatur et circumscribatur ab eo qui est extra, et contineatur ipsum Pleroma, vel primus Deus: neque vacuum esse, aut umbram capiet, cum jam ante sit Pater, uti ne deficiat lumen ejus, et definiatur in vacuum. Irrationale est autem et impium adinvenire locum, in quo cessat et finem habet qui est secundum eos Propator et Proarche, et omnium Pater et hujus Pleromatis. Nec rursus in Patris sinu alterum quendam dicere tantam fabricasse conditionem fas est, vel consentiente, vel non consentiente eo, propter praedictas causas. Impium est enim similiter et demens dicere, tantam conditionem ab angelis, aut ab emissione quadam ignorante verum Deum, in his quz sunt ipsius, fabricasse: neque intra Pleroma ipsorum, cum sit universum spiritale, ea quse sunt terrena et choica possibile facta esse: sed ne quidem secundum illorum imaginem, cum dicuntur pauci et similis formationis et unum esse, possibile est et quze sunt multae conditionis et contraria invicem facta esse. Falsus autem apparuit, et qui est de umbra cenomatis, id est vacui, ipsorum sermo secundum omnia. Itaque vacuum ostensum est figmentum eorum, et inconstans doctrina: vacui autem et hi qui attendunt eis, vere in profundum perditionis descendentes.

So there can be nothing outside the first Father, that is, the God who is above all, or outside the Pleroma, into which they say the Enthymesis of the suffering Aeon descended, lest the Pleroma itself, or the first God, be bounded and circumscribed by what is outside and be contained by it; nor can it admit a void or shadow, since the Father is there before, so that his light does not fail and end in a void. It is irrational and impious to invent a place in which their Propator and Proarche, the Father of all and of this Pleroma, ceases and has an end. Nor again is it lawful, for the reasons given, to say that someone else made so great a creation in the Father's bosom, whether he consented or not. For it is equally impious and mad to say that so great a creation was made by angels, or by some emission ignorant of the true God, within his own domain; nor is it possible that earthly and material things were made within their Pleroma, since it is wholly spiritual; nor even that things of a manifold creation, contrary to one another, were made after their image, since those are said to be few, of like formation, and one. And their talk of the shadow of the kenoma, that is, of the void, has proved false in every respect. So their fiction has been shown empty and their doctrine unstable; and those who listen to them are empty too, truly going down into the depth of perdition.

Notes and citation

Summary: Nothing can exist outside the Father, no void or shadow, and no other could make creation within his domain; the heretics' system is empty.

  • Kenoma (Greek “void”) is the Valentinian term for the region outside the Pleroma. Margin references and stray marks are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (margin reference; stray letters; stray mark): ab ` eo → ab eo; et 128. omnium → et omnium; terrena cr. p sl. et choica → terrena et choica; illorum ms imaginem → illorum imaginem; descendentes. 196. → descendentes..

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.8.3 (Harvey 1:270; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-8-3).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-8-3) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

Against 2, chapter 9

2.9.1Harvey 1:270–272

Quoniam quidem est mundi fabricator Deus, constat et ipsis, qui multis modis contradicunt ei, et confitentur eum, fabricatorem eum vocantes et angelum dicentes: ut non dicamus, quoniam omnes clamant Scripturae, et Dominus hunc Patrem qui est in caelis docet, et non alium: quemadmodum ostendemus procedente Nunc autem sufficit id quod est ab eis, qui contraria nobis dicunt testimonium, omnibus hominibus ad hoc demum consentientibus, veteribus quidem, et in primis a primoplasti traditione hanc suadelam custodientibus et unum Deum fabricatorem coeli et terre hymnizantibus: reliquis autem post eos a prophetis Dei hujus rei commemorationem accipientibus; ethnicis vero ab ipsa conditione discentibus. psa enim conditio ostendit eum qui condidit eam; et ipsa factura suggerit eum qui fecit; et mundus manifestat eum qui se disposuit. Ecclesia autem omnis per universum orbem hanc accepit ab apostolis traditionem.

That God is the maker of the world is agreed even by those who contradict him in many ways and yet confess him, calling him maker and saying he is an angel; not to say that all the Scriptures cry it out, and the Lord teaches this Father who is in heaven, and no other, as we shall show as our discourse proceeds. For now the testimony of those who say the opposite to us is enough, all men agreeing at least on this: the ancients keeping this conviction from the tradition of the first-formed man above all, and singing the praises of one God, maker of heaven and earth; the rest after them receiving the reminder of this from the prophets of God; and the Gentiles learning it from creation itself. For creation itself shows the one who founded it, the work itself suggests the one who made it, and the world makes known the one who ordered it. And the whole Church throughout the world has received this tradition from the apostles.

Rom 1:20 (allusion, high confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: All men, from Adam's tradition, the prophets and creation itself, and the whole Church from the apostles, confess one God, maker of the world.

  • Allusion: Rom 1:20. Margin references are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (margin reference): qui est in satev.16,4. caelis → qui est in caelis; ab Rom.i.99 ipsa → ab ipsa; qui 6.1 condidit → qui condidit.

Topics: Heresy, Scripture and canon

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.9.1 (Harvey 1:270–272; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-9-1).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-9-1) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.9.2Harvey 1:272

Constante igitur hoc Deo, quemadmodum diximus, et testimonium ab omnibus accipiente quoniam est: ille sine dubio, qui secundum eos adinvenitur pater, inconstans et sine teste est, Simone mago primo dicente semetipsum esse super omnia Deum, et mundum ab angelis ejus factum; post deinde his, qui successerunt ei secundum quod ostendimus in primo libro, variis sententiis impias et irreligiosas adversus fabricatorem cireumducentibus doctrinas: quorum discipuli cum sint hi, ethnicis pejores efficiunt eos qui assentiunt eis. llli enim creature potius quam Creatori servientes, et his qui non sunt dit; verumtamen primum deitatis locum attribuunt fabricatori hujus universitatis Deo. Hi autem, hunc quidem labis fructum dicentes, et animalem eum vocantes, et non cognoscentem eam quie super eum est virtutem, dicentem quoque, Ego sum Deus, et prater me non est alius Deus, mentiri eum dicentes, ipsi mentientes, omnem malitiam copulantes ei; eum qui non est super hunc, quod sit, fingentes secundum sententiam suam, deteguntur eum quidem qui est Deus blasphemantes, eum autem qui non est Deum fingentes in suam ipsorum condemnationem. Et qui dicunt semetipsos perfectos et universorum habere agnitionem ethnicis pejores, et magis blasphemi sensu etiam adversum suum factorem inveniuntur.

This God, then, being established, as we have said, and receiving testimony from all that he exists, the father invented by them is beyond doubt unstable and without witness. Simon the magician first said that he himself was God above all and that the world was made by his angels; then those who succeeded him, as we showed in the first book, with various opinions spread impious and irreligious doctrines against the maker; and these men, being their disciples, make those who agree with them worse than the Gentiles. For the Gentiles, serving the creature rather than the Creator, and those who are not gods, nevertheless give the first place of deity to God, the maker of this universe. But these men call him the fruit of deficiency, call him animal and ignorant of the power above him, and say that when he says, “I am God, and besides me there is no other God,” he lies; they themselves are lying, joining all malice to him; and inventing, by their own opinion, one who is not above him as though he existed, they are exposed as blaspheming the God who is, and inventing a God who is not, to their own condemnation. And those who call themselves perfect and claim knowledge of all things are found worse than the Gentiles, and more blasphemous in mind even against their own maker.

Rom 1:25 (allusion, high confidence) · Gal 4:8 (allusion, high confidence) · Isa 45:5 (quotation, high confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: The heretics' higher Father has no witness, and their contempt for the Creator makes them worse than the pagans.

  • Allusions and quotations: Rom 1:25; Gal 4:8; Isa 45:5 (46:9). Margin references are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (margin reference; margin reference; OCR slip): Rom. 1.25. eos → eos; Creatori Gal.iv.8 — gervientes → Creatori servientes.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.9.2 (Harvey 1:272; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-9-2).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-9-2) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

Against 2, chapter 10

2.10.1Harvey 1:272

Perraquam itaque irrationale est, praetermittentes eum qui vere est Deus et qui ab omnibus habet testimonium, queerere si est super eum is qui non est, et qui a nemine unquam annuntiatus est. Quoniam enim manifeste nihil dictum. est de eo et ipsi testimonium perhibent: quia autem parabolas, qu:e quaeruntur et ipsae quomodo dictae sint, male ad eum qui adinventus est ab ipsis transfigurantes, alium nunc qui ante nunquam quesitus est generant, manifestum est. Per hoc enim quod velint ambiguas exsolvere Scripturas (ambiguas autem non quasi ad alterum Deum, sed quasi ad dispositiones Dei,) alterum Deum fabricaverunt; quemadmodum praediximus, de arena resticulas nectentes, et quaestioni minori questionem majorem adgenerantes. Omnis autem quaestio non per aliud quod quaeritur habebit resolutionem, nec ambiguitas per aliam ambiguitatem solvetur apud eos qui sensum babent, aut sznigmata per aliud majus senigma; sed ea quze sunt talia ex manifestis et consonantibus et claris accipiunt absolutiones.

It is therefore most irrational to pass over him who is truly God and has the testimony of all, and to ask whether there is above him one who does not exist and has never been proclaimed by anyone. For that nothing has been said plainly about him, they themselves bear witness; and it is plain that, by wrongly transferring to the one they have invented the parables, whose meaning is itself in question, they now generate another who was never sought before. For by wishing to explain ambiguous passages of Scripture (ambiguous not as though referring to another God, but as referring to God's dispensations), they have fashioned another God, weaving, as we said before, ropes of sand, and adding a greater question to a lesser. But no question will be resolved by another that is itself in question, nor, among those who have sense, will an ambiguity be solved by another ambiguity, or riddles by a greater riddle; but such things receive their solution from what is plain, consistent and clear.

Notes and citation

Summary: Obscure parables must be explained by what is clear, not by inventing another God, which only adds a greater riddle.

  • Harvey's chapter title (“On questions and parables: how what is sought should be resolved”) is removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (editor's chapter title; split word and stray mark): De questionibus et parabolis, quomodo oporteat solvere ea que queruntur. → ; Deum? fabricave. runt → Deum fabricaverunt.

Topics: Heresy, Scripture and canon

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.10.1 (Harvey 1:272; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-10-1).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-10-1) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.10.2Harvey 1:272

Hi autem quaerentes exsolvere Scripturas et parabolas, alteram majorem et impiam quaestionem introducunt, siquidem super mundi fabricatorem Deum alius sit Deus, non exsolventes quaestiones, (unde enim?) sed minori quaestioni magnam quaestionem annectentes, et nodum insolubilem inserentes. Ut enim sciant hoc ipsum scire, quod utique triginta annorum Dominus venit ad baptismum veritatis, hoc non discentes, ipsum Deum. fabricatorem, qui misit eum ad salutem hominum, impie contemnunt: et ut putentur posse enarrare unde substantia materiae, non credentes quoniam Deus ex his que non erant, quemadmodum voluit, ea que facta sunt ut essent omnia fecit, sua voluntate et virtute substantia usus, sermones vanos collegerunt, vere ostendentes suam “infidelitatem: quoniam quidem his quz sunt non credunt, in id quod non est deciderunt.

But these men, seeking to explain the Scriptures and parables, introduce another greater and impious question, whether there is another God above God the world-maker; not solving questions (for how could they?), but attaching a great question to a small one and inserting an insoluble knot. For in order to know this very thing, that the Lord came to the baptism of truth at thirty years of age, they do not learn it but impiously despise God the maker himself, who sent him for the salvation of men. And to be thought able to explain where the substance of matter comes from, not believing that God made all things that were made, so that they might be, out of what was not, as he willed, using his will and power as substance, they have collected vain words, truly showing their unbelief: since they do not believe in what is, they have fallen into what is not.

Luke 3:23 (allusion, high confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: The heretics, not believing that God made all things from nothing by his will, invent vain explanations of matter.

  • Allusion: Luke 3:23 (Jesus about thirty at his baptism). The sentence on knowing is compressed in the Latin; translated as it stands. Stray marks and a broken word are corrected.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (hyphenated word split at a line end; margin reference; stray marks): 3? Ut → Ut; 213 non credentes → non credentes; quemadmo- dum → quemadmodum.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.10.2 (Harvey 1:272; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-10-2).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-10-2) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.10.3Harvey 1:272

Quoniam substantiam materie labt adjungere non constat; voluntate autem et virtute Dei constat, et fidem habet. Quvon enim dicunt ex lacrymis Achamoth, humectam prodisse substantiam, a risu autem lucidam, a tristitia autem solidam, et a timore mobilem, et in his altum sapere et inflatum esse, quomodo haec non digna irrisione et vere ridicula? qui non credunt quidem, quoniam ipsam materiam, cum sit potens et dives in omnibus, Deus creavit, nescientes quantum potest spiritalis et divina substantia; credentes autem quoniam Mater ipsorum, quam feminam a fcemina vocant, a praedictis passionibus emisit tantam conditionis materiam: et querentes quidem unde suppeditavit fabricatori conditionis substantia, non quaerentes autem unde Matri ipsorum, quam Enthymesin et impetum ZEonis errantis dicunt, lacrymas tantas aut sudores, aut tristitias, aut reliqua materie emissio.

For to attach the substance of matter to a deficiency is not consistent; to attach it to the will and power of God is consistent and has credibility. When they say that moist substance came from Achamoth's tears, luminous substance from her laughter, solid substance from her sadness, and mobile substance from her fear, and are proud and puffed up about these things, how is this not worthy of derision and truly ridiculous? They do not believe that God, being powerful and rich in all things, created matter itself, not knowing how much a spiritual and divine substance can do; but they believe that their Mother, whom they call a female from a female, emitted from the passions mentioned so great a matter of creation. And they ask where the substance of creation was supplied to the maker from, but do not ask where their Mother, whom they call the Enthymesis and impulse of an erring Aeon, got so many tears, or sweat, or sorrows, or whatever else produced matter.

Notes and citation

Summary: It is ridiculous to derive matter from Achamoth's tears and laughter while refusing to believe God created it.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.10.3 (Harvey 1:272; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-10-3).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-10-3) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.10.4Harvey 1:272–275

Attribuere enim substantiam eorum qus facta sunt virtuti et voluntati ejus qui est omnium Deus, et credibile et acceptabile et constans et in hoc bene diceretur: quoniam que impossibilia sunt apud homines, possibilia sunt apud Deum; quoniam homines quidem de nihilo non possunt aliquid facere, sed de materia subjacenti: Deus autem quam homines hoc primo melior, eo quod materiam fabricationis suse cum ante non esset ipse adinvenit. Dicere autem de Enthymesi 7Eonis errantis prolatam materiam, et longe quidem /Eonem ab Enthymesi ejus separatam, et hujus rursus passionem et affectionem extra ipsam quidem ejus esse materiam, et incredibile et fatuum et impossibile et inconstans.

For to attribute the substance of things made to the power and will of him who is God of all is credible, acceptable and consistent, and of this it would be well said: “What is impossible with men is possible with God.” For men cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out of underlying matter; but God is above all better than men in this, that he himself found the matter of his work when it did not exist before. But to say that matter was emitted from the Enthymesis of an erring Aeon, and that the Aeon was far separated from her Enthymesis, and that her passion and affection, again, apart from her, is matter, is incredible, foolish, impossible and inconsistent.

Luke 18:27 (quotation, high confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: God, unlike men, made the very matter of creation from nothing; the heretics' account is incredible.

  • Quotation: Luke 18:27. Running heads inside words are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (margin reference inside a word; running head inside a word; stray mark): ipse ¢. adinvenit → ipse adinvenit; separaLIB IT xL 1. tam → separatam; quiMASS. IL. xi. dem → quidem.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.10.4 (Harvey 1:272–275; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-10-4).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-10-4) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

Against 2, chapter 11

2.11.1Harvey 1:275

Er non credentes quidem quoniam hic qui est super omnia Deus, in his quz sunt ejus varia et dissimilia Verbo fabricavit quemadmodum ipse voluit, cum sit omnium fabricator, ut sapiens architectus et maximus rex; credentes autem quoniam angeli, aut virtus aliqua separata a Deo et ignorans eum fecit hanc universitatem, sic igitur veritati non credentes, in mendacio autem volutantes, perdiderunt panem vite verse, in vacuum et in profundum umbre incidentes; similes Aesopi cani ei qui panem quidem reliquit, in umbram autem ejus impetum fecit, et perdidit escam. Et ex ipsis autem Domini verbis facile est ostendere, confitentis unum Patrem et factorem mundi et plasmatorem hominis, qui a lege et prophetis annuntiatus sit, et alterum nescientis, et hunc esse super omnia Deum: docentis autem, et per se eam qus est ad Patrem adoptio filiorum, quz est seterna vita, omnibus justis attribuentis.

And not believing that God who is above all made by the Word, within his own domain, the varied and unlike things as he willed, since he is the maker of all, like a wise architect and a very great king, but believing that angels, or some power separated from God and ignorant of him, made this universe, they have thus, not believing the truth but wallowing in falsehood, lost the bread of the true life, falling into the void and the depth of shadow; like Aesop's dog, which left the bread, sprang at its shadow, and lost the food. And it is easy to show from the Lord's own words that he confesses one Father, maker of the world and fashioner of man, proclaimed by the law and the prophets, and knows no other, and that this is God above all; and that he teaches, and grants through himself to all the just, the adoption of sons with the Father, which is eternal life.

Notes and citation

Summary: Like Aesop's dog, the heretics have lost the true bread for a shadow; the Lord's words confess one Father and Creator.

  • Allusion: Aesop's fable of the dog and its reflection (Perry 133). The OCR's “7Esopi” is corrected.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (OCR digit for letter): 7Esopi → Aesopi.

Extrabiblical texts: Aesop, Perry 133 (Aesop, Fables; allusion)

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.11.1 (Harvey 1:275; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-11-1).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-11-1) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.11.2Harvey 1:275–276

Sed quoniam amant incusare, et ea que sunt sine calumnia, ut calumniosi concutiunt, multitudinem parabolarum et quaestionum inferentes nobis, bene haec arbitrati sumus primo interrogare eos e contrario de suis dogmatibus, et quod non est verisimile ipsorum ostendere, et temeritatem ipsorum excidere: post deinde Domini sermones inferre, ut non sint tantum ad proponendum vacantes; sed propter hoc quod non possint ad ea quz interrogantur ratione respondere, dissolutam suam videntes argumentationem, aut revertentes ad veritatem, et semetipsos humiliantes, et cessantes a multifaria sua phantasia, placantes Deum de his qui adversus eum blasphemaverunt, salventur: aut si perseverarint in ea quz» praeoccupavit animum ipsorum vana gloria, argumentationem suam immutent.

But since they love to accuse, and like slanderers shake even what is beyond reproach, bringing against us a multitude of parables and questions, we have thought it good first to question them in turn about their own doctrines, to show what is implausible in them and cut off their rashness; and then to bring forward the Lord's words, so that they may not be free only to make propositions; but that, being unable to answer reasonably what they are asked and seeing their argument dissolved, they may either return to the truth, humble themselves, cease from their manifold fantasy, and, appeasing God for their blasphemies against him, be saved; or, if they persist in the vainglory that has taken hold of their minds, at least change their argument.

Notes and citation

Summary: Irenaeus will first question the heretics about their own doctrines and then bring the Lord's words, hoping for their conversion.

  • A fragment of Harvey's note and a running head at the end are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (fragment of Harvey's note and running head): favourite assumption innotent, 276 TRIACONTAS REDUNDAT SIMUL → .

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.11.2 (Harvey 1:275–276; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-11-2).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-11-2) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

Against 2, chapter 12

2.12.1Harvey 1:276

Primo quidem de triacontade ipsorum sic dicemus, universam eam utrinque mire decidere, et secundum id quod minus habet et secundum id quod plus, propter quam dicunt triginta annorum Dominum ad baptismum venisse. Hec autem dicente, manifesta erit universe argumentationis ipsorum eversio. Et secundum deminorationem quidem sic: Primo quidem, quoniam annumerant reliquis ZEonibus Propatorem. Pater enim omnium enumerari non debet cum reliqua emissione: qui non est emissus cum ea qui emissa est: et innatus cum ea quis nata est: et quem nemo capit cum ea que ab eo capitur, et propter hoc incapabilis: qui infiguratus est cum ea que figurata est. Secundum enim id quod melior quam reliqui non debet cum eis annumerari; et hoc cum Xone passibili, et in errore constituto, qui est impassibilis et non errans. Quoniam enim a Bytho inchoantes triaeontada enumerant usque ad Sophiam, quam /Eonem errantem dicunt, ostendimus in eo libro qui est ante hunc librum, et que dicunt nomina ipsorum posuimus: hoc autem non annumerato, jam non sunt xxx secundum eos emissiones /Eonum, sed xx et novem fiunt.

First, about their Triacontad we shall say that the whole of it collapses wonderfully on both sides, both by defect and by excess; for which they say the Lord came to baptism at thirty years of age. When this is said, the overthrow of their whole argument will be plain. By defect, thus: first, because they count the Propator with the other Aeons. For the Father of all ought not to be counted with the rest of the emission: he who was not emitted with what was emitted; the unborn with what was born; him whom no one contains with what is contained by him, and who is therefore uncontainable; him who is without form with what has form. For since he is better than the rest, he ought not to be counted with them, and that he who is impassible and does not err with an Aeon subject to passion and set in error. For we showed in the book before this that, beginning from Bythus, they count the Triacontad up to Sophia, whom they call the erring Aeon, and we set out the names they give; but if he is not counted, there are no longer, according to them, thirty emissions of Aeons, but they become twenty-nine.

Luke 3:23 (allusion, medium confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: The Triacontad fails by defect, since the Father, unlike the emitted Aeons, should not be counted among them.

  • Allusion: Luke 3:23. Harvey's chapter title (“How their account of the Triacontad fails on both sides, by excess and by defect”) and stray marks are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (editor's chapter title; stray Greek; stray marks inside a word): Quomodo 1s sermo qui est de triacontade wllorum concidit in utroque, et secundum id quod plus est, et secundum id quod minus. → ; univer¢ 5 Sam eam → universam eam; οι peu jam → jam.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.12.1 (Harvey 1:276; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-12-1).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-12-1) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.12.2Harvey 1:276–277

Post deinde primam emissionem Ennoiam, quam Sigen vocantes, ex qua rursum[Nun] et Alethiam emissos dicunt: in utrisque exorbitant. Impossibile est enim enncean alicujus, aut silentium separatim intelligi, et extra eum emissum propriam habere figurationem. Si autem non dicent esse emissam illam extra, sed adunatam Propatori, ut quid cum reliquis /Eonibus annumerant eam, his qui non sunt adunati, et propter hoc ignorant magnitudinem ejus? Si autem et unita est, (consideremus et hoc,) necessitas est omnis ab unita conjugatione et inseparabili et unum exsistente indiscretam, et unitam eam que ex ea est, emissionem fieri, ut non dissimilis sit ab eo qui emisit, Hoc autem sic se habente, unum et idem fiet, quemadmodum Bythus et Sige, sic et Nus et Alethia, semper adhaerentes invicem: et quod non possit alterum sine altero intelligi, quemadmodum neque aqua sine humectatione, neque ignis sine calore, neque lapis sine duritia, unita sunt enim invicem hse, et alterum ab altero separari non potest, sed semper coexsistere ei. Sic et Bythum cum Ennoea adunitum esse oportet, et Nun cum. Alethia eodem modo. — Rursus et Logos et Zoe ab unitis emissi, unitos esse, et unum esse debent. Secundum haec autem, et Homo et Ecclesia, et universa reliquorum ZEonum conjugationis emissio, unita esse debet, et semper coexsistere alterum altero. Fceminam enim ZEonum pariter esse oportet cum masculo secundum eos, cum sit velut affectio ejus.

Next, regarding the first emission, Ennoia, whom they also call Sige, from whom again they say Nus and Aletheia were emitted, they go astray on both counts. For it is impossible for the thought of anyone, or his silence, to be understood separately, and for it, emitted outside him, to have a shape of its own. But if they say she was not emitted outside but is united with the Propator, why do they count her with the other Aeons, who are not united and therefore do not know his greatness? And if she is united (let us consider this too), it is absolutely necessary that from a united, inseparable conjunction that is one, an undivided and united emission should come, so as not to be unlike him who emitted it. If this is so, then as Bythus and Sige, so Nus and Aletheia will be one and the same, always cleaving to each other: so that one cannot be understood without the other, as water cannot without wetness, fire without heat, or stone without hardness; for these are united with each other and one cannot be separated from the other, but always coexists with it. So Bythus must be united with Ennoia, and Nus with Aletheia in the same way. Again, Logos and Zoe, emitted from united ones, ought to be united and one. By the same reasoning Anthropos and Ecclesia, and the whole emission of conjunction of the other Aeons, ought to be united and always coexist with each other. For the female Aeon, according to them, must exist together with the male, since she is, as it were, his affection.

Notes and citation

Summary: Thought and Silence cannot be separate beings from the Father; if united, all the paired Aeons must be inseparable.

  • “Nus” is Harvey's supplement. Harvey's chapter title (“That the conjunctions within the Pleroma cannot be separated; and if they are united, Sophia could not have suffered deficiency or generated anything without her consort”), a running head and stray marks are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (editor's chapter title; hyphenated word split at a line end; running head; stray digit; stray mark): Quoniam, vmpossibile est separatas esse ab invicem eas que infra plenitudinem | dicuntur conjugationes: adunitis autem ws, wmpossibile est Sophiam sine conjuge assumpsisse labem, aut etiam generasse aliquid. → ; Sigen 1 vocantes → Sigen vocantes; ?[Nun] → [Nun]; LiB: 11. xit. aut → aut; (con- sideremus → (consideremus.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.12.2 (Harvey 1:276–277; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-12-2).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-12-2) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.12.3Harvey 1:277–278

Et hec cum ita se habeant, et cum haec dicantur ab ipsis, rursus impudorate audent docere, juniorem duodecadis 7IEonem, quem et Sophiam appellant, sine permixtione conjugis, quem Theletum vocant, passam esse passionem, et separatim sine eo fructum generasse, quem et feminam a fcmina nominant, in tantum dementis progressi ita ut manifestissime duas contrarias de eodem sententias censeant. Si enim Bythus aduuitus est cum Sige, et Nus cum Alethia, et Logos cum Zoe, et reliqui deinceps, quemadmodum poterat Sophia sine conjugis perplexione pati aliquid, vel generare? Si autem hzec sine illo passa est, necesse est et reliquas conjugationes abscessionem et separationem a semetipsis accipere: quod est impossibile, sieut praediximus. Impossibile est ergo et Sophiam passam esse sine Theleto: et soluta est ipsorum rursus omnis argumentatio. passione enim, quam sine complexione conjugis passam eam dicunt, iterum reliquam universam velut tragcediee compositionem affinxerunt.

And though this is so, and though they themselves say these things, they again shamelessly dare to teach that the youngest Aeon of the Duodecad, whom they call Sophia, without union with her consort, whom they call Theletos, suffered passion, and separately, without him, generated a fruit, which they also call a female from a female; going so far in madness as to hold most plainly two contrary opinions about the same thing. For if Bythus is united with Sige, Nus with Aletheia, Logos with Zoe, and the rest in turn, how could Sophia suffer anything or generate without the embrace of her consort? And if she suffered without him, the other conjunctions too must admit departure and separation from each other, which is impossible, as we said before. It is impossible, then, that Sophia suffered without Theletos; and again their whole argument is dissolved. For from the passion which they say she suffered without the embrace of her consort they have again fabricated all the rest, like the composition of a tragedy.

Notes and citation

Summary: If the paired Aeons are inseparable, Sophia could not suffer or generate apart from her consort, and their whole myth falls.

  • A fragment of Harvey's notes and running heads are removed; the preposition before “passion” is lost with them and supplied in the translation from the sense.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (fragment of Harvey's notes and running head; margin debris; margin reference inside a word): omnis argumentatio. 1 sine ullo perhaps ἄνευ rwos. LIB. II. xii) 8, 6 passione → omnis argumentatio. passione; passam Sfiss i] eam → passam eam; composixli. 3. tionem → compositionem.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.12.3 (Harvey 1:277–278; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-12-3).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-12-3) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.12.4Harvey 1:278

Si autem impudorate et reliquas conjugationes disjunctas ab invicem dixerint esse separatas propter novissimam conjugationem, uti non solvatur illorum vaniloquium; primo quidem impossibili insistunt rel. Quemadmodum enim separabunt Propatorem ab Enncea ejus, aut Nun ab Alethia, aut Logon a Zoe, et reliquos similiter? Quemadmodum autem et ipsi ad unitatem recurrere dicunt, et omnes unum esse, si quidem he, qu sunt intra Pleroma conjugationes unitatem non custodiunt, sed diBtantes sunt ab invicem, in tantum uti et patiantur, et generent sine alterius complexu, quemadmodum gallinae sine caponibus?

But if, so that their vain talk may not be dissolved, they shamelessly say that the other conjunctions too were disjoined and separated from each other because of the last conjunction, first they rest on an impossible thing. For how will they separate the Propator from his Ennoia, or Nus from Aletheia, or Logos from Zoe, and the rest likewise? And how do they themselves say that they return to unity and that all are one, if the conjunctions within the Pleroma do not keep unity but are apart from each other, so far that they suffer and generate without each other's embrace, like hens without cocks?

Notes and citation

Summary: Separating the other paired Aeons is impossible and contradicts the Valentinians' own teaching of final unity.

  • A stray Greek mark is corrected to a question mark.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (stray Greek for a question mark): caponibus ἢ → caponibus?.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.12.4 (Harvey 1:278; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-12-4).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-12-4) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.12.5Harvey 1:278

Posr demum et sic solvetur illorum rursum prima etis archegonos ogdoas. Erunt enim specialiter in eodem Pleromate Bythus et Sige, Nus et Alethia, Logos et Zoe, Anthropos et Ecclesia. Impossibile est autem Logo praesente Sigen esse, aut iterum Sige presente Logon ostendi. Haec enim consumptibilia sunt invicem, quemadmodum lumen et tenebre in eodem nequaquam erunt; sed si quidem lumen sit, non'sunt tenebre: ubi autem tenebre sunt, non erit lumen: veniente enim lumine, solute Bunt tenebre. Sic ubi est Sige, non erit Logos; et ubi Logos, non utique est Sige. Si autem endiatheton Logon dixerint, endiathetos erit et Sige; et nihilominus solvetur ab endiatheto Logo. Quoniam autem non est endiathetos, ipsa haec ordinatio ipsorum emissionis significat.

Then again, their first and archetypal Ogdoad will also be dissolved in this way. For Bythus and Sige, Nus and Aletheia, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia will each be in the same Pleroma. But it is impossible for Sige to be present when Logos is, or again for Logos to be shown when Sige is present. For these consume each other, as light and darkness will never be in the same place; if there is light, there is no darkness, and where darkness is, there will be no light, for when light comes, darkness is dissolved. So where Sige is, there will be no Logos, and where Logos is, there is certainly no Sige. And if they say the Logos is internal, Sige will be internal too, and will nonetheless be dissolved by the internal Logos. But that he is not internal, the very order of their emission shows.

Notes and citation

Summary: Speech (Logos) and Silence (Sige) cannot coexist in one Pleroma, any more than light and darkness.

  • “Internal” renders endiathetos (the word conceived in the mind, as opposed to the uttered word). Harvey's chapter title (“That Word and Silence could not be in the same Pleroma”) is removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (editor's chapter title): Quoniam in eodem Pleromate non poterat. Verbum et Silentium, esse. → .

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.12.5 (Harvey 1:278; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-12-5).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-12-5) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.12.6Harvey 1:278

Jam igitur non dicant primam et principalem ogdoaden ex Logo et Sige constare, sed aut Sigen, aut Logon refutent: et soluta est illorum prima et principalis ogdoas. Si enim unitas conjugationes dixerint, soluta est eorum universa argumentatio. Quomodo enim unitis eis, Sophia sine conjuge labem generavit? Si autem sicut in emissione unumquemque ex onibus propriam substantiam habere dicent, quemadmodum in eodem ostendi potest Sige et Logos? Et haec quidem secundum diminutionem.

Let them no longer say, then, that the first and principal Ogdoad consists of Logos and Sige, but let them reject either Sige or Logos; and their first and principal Ogdoad is dissolved. For if they say the conjunctions are united, their whole argument is dissolved: for how, if they are united, did Sophia generate a deficiency without her consort? But if they say that, as in emission, each of the Aeons has its own substance, how can Sige and Logos be shown in the same place? So much by way of defect.

Notes and citation

Summary: Whether the Aeons are united or separate, the Valentinian Ogdoad cannot stand.

  • Margin references and stray marks are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (margin reference; margin references and stray marks; stray mark): et o.1s principalem → et principalem; }{sed] aut Sigen, 115. 1.217. aut Logon → sed aut Sigen, aut Logon; principalis GR; 21 ar. ogdoas → principalis ogdoas; eorum ̈ universa → eorum universa.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.12.6 (Harvey 1:278; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-12-6).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-12-6) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.12.7Harvey 1:278–280

Secundum autem id quod plus est, rursus solvitur triacontas ipsorum sic: Emissum enim a Monogene dicunt, sicut et reliquos Atonas, Horon, quem plurimis nominibus vocant, sicut praediximus in eo, qui ante hunc est liber. Hunc autem Horon quidam quidem a Monogene emissum dicunt, alii vero ab ipso Propatore in similitudine sua. Adhuc etiam emissionem dicunt factam a Monogene Christo, et Spiritu Sancto, et hos non annumerant ad numerum Pleromatis: sed neque Salvatorem, quem etiam? Totum esse dicunt. Hoc enim manifestum est et caeco, quoniam non solum triginta emissiones secundum illos emissae sunt, sed et quatuor cum istis xxx. Ipsum enim Propatorem annumerant in Pleroma, et eos qui ex successione ab invicem emissi sunt. Quid quod isti non annumerabuntur illis in eodem Pleromate exsistentes, qui adepti sunt eandem emissionem?* Quam enim edicere possunt justam causam, ob quam non annumerant cum reliquis ZEonibus, neque Christum, quem volente Patre a Monogene dicunt esse emissum, neque Spiritum Sanctum, neque Horon, quem et Sotera dicunt; sed neque ipsum Salvatorem, qui venit ad auxilium et formationem matris ipsorum? Utrum quasi sint isti infirmiores illorum, et ideo indignos esse /ZEonum appellatione et numero: aut quasi meliores aint et differentes? Sed infimi quidem quomodo fient, qui etiam in fixionem et emendationem reliquorum emissi sunt? Meliores autem rursus prima et principali tetrade esse non possunt, a qua et emissi sunt: et illa enim enumeratur in predictum numerum. Oportuerat autem et istos annumerari in Pleromate Atonum: aut et illorum ZEonum honorem hujusmodi appellationis auferri.

By excess, again, their Triacontad is dissolved thus. They say that Horos, whom they call by many names, as we said in the book before this, was emitted by Monogenes, like the other Aeons. Some say this Horos was emitted by Monogenes, others by the Propator himself in his own likeness. They also say that an emission was made by Monogenes, Christ and the Holy Spirit; and these they do not count in the number of the Pleroma, nor the Saviour either, whom they also call the Whole. For it is plain even to a blind man that, according to them, not only thirty emissions were emitted, but four along with these thirty. For they count the Propator himself in the Pleroma, and those who were emitted from one another in succession. Why are these not counted with them, though existing in the same Pleroma and having obtained the same emission? What just cause can they give for not counting with the other Aeons either Christ, whom they say was emitted by Monogenes at the Father's will, or the Holy Spirit, or Horos, whom they also call Soter, or even the Saviour himself, who came to help and form their Mother? Is it as though these were weaker than those and so unworthy of the name and number of Aeons, or as though they were better and different? But how will they be lowest, who were emitted for the establishing and correction of the others? Nor again can they be better than the first and principal Tetrad, from which they were emitted; for it too is counted in the number mentioned. These too ought to have been counted in the Pleroma of Aeons, or else those Aeons should be deprived of the honour of this name.

Notes and citation

Summary: The Triacontad fails by excess too, since Horos, Christ, the Holy Spirit and the Saviour are emitted Aeons left uncounted.

  • Harvey's alternative reading, a running head, margin references and stray marks are removed.

Notes on the original text

  • Digital text corrected (Harvey's alternative reading, removed; OCR slip; margin reference; running head; stray mark): & Monogene → a Monogene; [Christum et Spiritum Sanctum, | → ; in ET DEFICIT. LIB. 11. xiv. fixionem → in fixionem; Meliores OR Ix, autem → Meliores autem; a qua Xi.7. et emissi → a qua et emissi; et ! illorum → et illorum.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.12.7 (Harvey 1:278–280; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-12-7).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-12-7) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).

2.12.8Harvey 1:280

Cum ergo sit soluta illorum triacontas, sicut ostendimus, et secundum id quod minus est, et secundum id quod plus est: (in tali enim numero si plus fuerit, aut minus, reprobabilem faciet numerum, quanto magis tanta?) instabilis igitur ea que est de Ogdoade ipsorum, et de duodecade fabula. Instabilis autem et universa illorum regula, ipso firmamento ipsorum dissipato et in Bythum, hoc est in id quod non est, dissoluto. Quaerant igitur jam a modo alias causas ostendere, quare xxx annorum Dominus ad baptismum venerit; et duodecadis Apostolorum; et ejus qure sanguinis profluvium passa est; et reliquorum quiecunque vane laborantes delirant.

Since, then, their Triacontad is dissolved, as we have shown, both by defect and by excess (for in such a number, more or less makes the number unacceptable, how much more such large differences?), their fable of the Ogdoad and the Duodecad is unstable. Unstable too is their whole system, its very foundation scattered and dissolved into Bythus, that is, into what does not exist. Let them seek from now on to show other reasons why the Lord came to baptism at thirty years of age, and for the Duodecad of the apostles, and for the woman who suffered the flow of blood, and for all the other things about which they rave, labouring in vain.

Luke 3:23 (allusion, medium confidence) · Luke 6:13 (allusion, low confidence) · Mark 5:25 (allusion, medium confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: With the Triacontad overthrown, the Valentinian reading of Gospel numbers (thirty years, twelve apostles, twelve years of bleeding) collapses.

  • Allusions: Luke 3:23; Luke 6:13; Mark 5:25.

Topics: Heresy

Cite (SBL): Irenaeus, Haer. 2.12.8 (Harvey 1:280; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/irenaeus-adversus-haereses/2-7-1/#p-2-12-8).

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-irenaeus-adversus-haereses-2-12-8) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the ancient Latin translation as printed by Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), from the OCR of the printed edition with slips corrected as logged, in Massuet's section numbering; lines lost in the scan supplied from Stieren's edition (1848–53) where noted; each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 1 (1885).